Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
ACLU, Defending Religious Freedoms?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TLK Valentine" data-source="post: 72434692" data-attributes="member: 306134"><p>So far, so obvious.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not true -- they <em><strong>can</strong></em> be revisited at any time... but you only <em><strong>want them</strong></em> to be revisited when there is a Conservative majority who is likely to give you the results you want.</p><p></p><p>In fact, they <em><strong>have</strong></em> been revisited, and the justices have found that the original decision stands, and needs to be applied to whichever case caused them to revisit it in the first place.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except you've offered up no legal argument against Roe v Wade or SSM -- you're rooting strictly for ideology, not the law. Why is that?</p><p></p><p>Roe v Wade was judged, in part, based on Griswold v Connecticut, in which SCOTUS determined that the 14th Amendment includes (albeit not explicitly) a "right to privacy" which rendered the state's prohibition against discussing birth control to married couples unConstitutional. Roe v Wade took that ruling and ran with it, stating (logically so), that if the right to privacy extends to one's bedroom, it necessarily extends to one's uterus.</p><p></p><p>Obergefell v Hodges once again invoked the 14th Amendment's (long a thorn in the Conservative side, I know) due process and equal protection clauses to say that the state could not deny the right of marriage to people based on their genders.</p><p></p><p>I'm not yet seeing a convincing legal argument against either of those decisions. Perhaps you have one?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TLK Valentine, post: 72434692, member: 306134"] So far, so obvious. Not true -- they [I][B]can[/B][/I] be revisited at any time... but you only [I][B]want them[/B][/I] to be revisited when there is a Conservative majority who is likely to give you the results you want. In fact, they [I][B]have[/B][/I] been revisited, and the justices have found that the original decision stands, and needs to be applied to whichever case caused them to revisit it in the first place. Except you've offered up no legal argument against Roe v Wade or SSM -- you're rooting strictly for ideology, not the law. Why is that? Roe v Wade was judged, in part, based on Griswold v Connecticut, in which SCOTUS determined that the 14th Amendment includes (albeit not explicitly) a "right to privacy" which rendered the state's prohibition against discussing birth control to married couples unConstitutional. Roe v Wade took that ruling and ran with it, stating (logically so), that if the right to privacy extends to one's bedroom, it necessarily extends to one's uterus. Obergefell v Hodges once again invoked the 14th Amendment's (long a thorn in the Conservative side, I know) due process and equal protection clauses to say that the state could not deny the right of marriage to people based on their genders. I'm not yet seeing a convincing legal argument against either of those decisions. Perhaps you have one? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
ACLU, Defending Religious Freedoms?
Top
Bottom