Biden kills the court decision.

[Shadow Wolf]

Congress cannot over-rule SCOTUS.
But Congress can learn from rulings the reasons
why an aspect of legislation was struck down,
& then write new survivable legislation.

We don't need new legislation. We must strictly enforce and defend the Secular basis of the Constitution. That is what is under attack. They'll strike any law they want for any reason. We have to be a step ahead of this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Provide proof that they lied. Supply what words they said that provers this...Must be a quote not hearsay.

You seem to have a problem with their rulings and say they are "unconstitutional".
What is uncostitutional about their rulings? Provide proof that the rulings were unconstitutional.

They are issuing religious based decisions. Those are inherently unconstitutional.

 

[Revoltingest]

We don't need new legislation. We must strictly enforce and defend the Secular basis of the Constitution. That is what is under attack. They'll strike any law they want for any reason. We have to be a step ahead of this.

It takes time to strike down legislation.
So it's useful until SCOTUS becomes
secular again.

 

[esmith]

They are issuing religious based decisions. Those are inherently unconstitutional.

If you are referencing Roe v Wade you are mistaken.
They did not say abortions are illegal, they said that basically the 10th Amendment to the Constitution ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."). Based upon this original intent, the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion. Thus the States have the power to govern abortions.
Part of the above was copied from: The Voter's Self Defense System

 

[esmith]

It takes time to strike down legislation.
So it's useful until SCOTUS becomes
secular again.

Only if one think that "originalism" is a religion or spiritualism would one say that the SCOTUS struck down Roe v Wade on religiouls or spiritual grounds, IMO.
Again it is my opinion that oposing abortion on religious grounds, whether the Old Testament, New Testament, or the Quran is only based on interpretation of same since as far as I know abortions are not mentioned in either.
And this "interpretation" of same have lead to many problems, loss of lives, and misunderstandings over the centuries

 

[Revoltingest]

Only if one think that "originalism" is a religion or spiritualism would one say that the SCOTUS struck down Roe v Wade on religiouls or spiritual grounds, IMO.

Originalism is merely an approach to constitutional law.
That approach will be highly influenced by one's religious
& political orientation. This is because the law is a very
subjective thing.
It seems to me that justices gave less weight to some
factors (9th Amendment), & more to others (weakness
of the privacy argument) in pursuit of religious leanings.

Some very different originalist approaches....
- Christian theocratism
- Libertarianism / Classical liberalism
- Conservatism

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you are referencing Roe v Wade you are mistaken.
They did not say abortions are illegal, they said that basically the 10th Amendment to the Constitution ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."). Based upon this original intent, the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion. Thus the States have the power to govern abortions.
Part of the above was copied from: The Voter's Self Defense System

We all know who was pushing for this, their reasons, and that they'd do it by any means necessary.
And guess what? Ultimately the "original intent" is to not be governed by a bunch of dead guys with frequent updates and rewrites of the Constitution. It is an absurd, ridiculous and paradoxical position to take in US politics. LOTS of stuff today didn't exist back then. The Founders knew this. They didn't want this "original intent" because they how impossible such a foolhardy thing is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Originalism is merely an approach to constitutional law.
That approach will be highly influenced by one's religious
& political orientation. This is because the law is a very
subjective thing.
It seems to me that justices gave less weight to some
factors (9th Amendment), & more to others (weakness
of the privacy argument) in pursuit of religious leanings.

Some very different originalist approaches....
- Christian theocratism
- Libertarianism / Classical liberalism
- Conservatism

Originalism is a paradoxical farce the Founders did not want. Why then do people insist on trying to force the 18th century onto the 21st century?

 

[HonestJoe]

The Supreme Court of USA has made the America Great Again and gave this nation a chance
to survive the Climate Change and WW3 war by acknowledging, that abortion is first degree murder.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, how does this specific ruling have anything to do with climate change or any potential future world war.

Can major sinner Biden kill the court decision?

Doesn't your religion define us all as sinners?

Abortion is sin in all Theistic Religions.
Suicide is sin in all Theistic Religions.

Questionable depending of a vast range of interpretations and understandings but regardless, irrelevant to anyone other than followers of those religions.

Why Abortion is "legal", but Suicide is not?

Suicide (and attempted suicide, which is more relevant for obvious practical reasons) isn't illegal in many US jurisdictions and even where it technically is, it is rarely pursued in the courts. It is correctly recognised as a health issue rather than a criminal one.

I'd personally suggest abortion (and the wider issues surrounding it) should be primarily treated with a similar approach. It's ultimately about achieving the best (or least worst) overall outcomes rather than blindly following inflexible rules and laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

Originalism is a paradoxical farce the Founders did not want. Why then do people insist on trying to force the 18th century onto the 21st century?

What do you think "originalism" means?
It doesn't seem to match my usage, which
is about anticipating evolution of technology,
recognizing new rights, & amendment.

Don't buy into the liberal simplistic demonization
of the term....or how some conservatives hijack
it to bend the Constitution to their view.

 

[joe1776]

...
I personally believe we have reached that point since the Supreme Court is no longer following or abiding by the constitution as it has sworn and is mandated to do. The court has gone "rogue" and therefor must be replaced.

The problem with all laws is that it is impossible to write a law that is impervious to misinterpretation. Finding "loopholes" is what slick lawyers are paid to do. That's why tax laws favor the rich who can afford high-priced lawyers.

The problem is even worse with old laws like the Constitution because, over the years, words don't mean exactly the same thing they once did. It's easy to interpret them any way one chooses.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Abortion is sin in all Theistic Religions.
Suicide is sin in all Theistic Religions.

Why do you think this is true because it's not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What do you think "originalism" means?
It doesn't seem to match my usage, which
is about anticipating evolution of technology,
recognizing new rights, & amendment.

Don't buy into the liberal simplistic demonization
of the term....or how some conservatives hijack
it to bend the Constitution to their view.

I tend to see it very generally espoused by conservatives, such as the SC Justices who declared abortion isn't in the Constitution and isn't rooted in American history or traditions. They use it to turn to the past to solve today's issues and problems. And the Founders did write they didn't want that, and that the future should not be governed by the dead and beholden to standards of a past world that is dead and gone.
How you use it is more in line with the actual original intent, but you're the only one I've ever known to use it that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

I tend to see it very generally espoused by conservatives, such as the SC Justices who declared abortion isn't in the Constitution and isn't rooted in American history or traditions. They use it to turn to the past to solve today's issues and problems. And the Founders did write they didn't want that, and that the future should not be governed by the dead and beholden to standards of a past world that is dead and gone.
How you use it is more in line with the actual original intent, but you're the only one I've ever known to use it that way.

I'm not alone. But those OINOs (Orignialists in name
only) have garnered all the attention in the news. I see
much revisionism in their decisions, & their contempt
for the 9th Amendment.
Still, original intent won't necessarily yield what you
want. Some things must be achieved by legislation
& even amendment....or shouldn't be at all.

 

[PureX]

The problem with all laws is that it is impossible to write a law that is impervious to misinterpretation. Finding "loopholes" is what slick lawyers are paid to do. That's why tax laws favor the rich who can afford high-priced lawyers.

The problem is even worse with old laws like the Constitution because, over the years, words don't mean exactly the same thing they once did. It's easy to interpret them any way one chooses.

That's why it was important to install qualified, professional judges on the court, that are experts in constitutional law, instead of these biased political toadies that the republicans have been pushing through. They deliberately stacked the court with flunkies, and now the court has become dysfunctional. It's time to remove the flunkies, and reset the court. Unfortunately, the founders never anticipated that we would deliberately stack the supreme court with incompetent jurists, so no provision was made to unseat them. And because our legislature is equally dysfunctional and loaded with political flunkies, we will be very unlikely to fix the court.

And we did this to ourselves, every time we voted for some crooked legislator that promised to stack the court in "our favor".

 

[joe1776]

That's why it was important to install qualified, professional judges on the court, that are experts in constitutional law, instead of these biased political toadies that the republicans have been pushing through.

They deliberately stacked the court with flunkies, and now the court has become dysfunctional. It's time to remove the flunkies, and reset the court.

Unfortunately, the founders never anticipated that we would deliberately stack the supreme court with incompetent jurists, so no provision was made to unseat them. And because our legislature is equally dysfunctional and loaded with political flunkies, we will be very unlikely to fix the court.

I agree that the problem is that the Founders didn't anticipate the problem. That's because they were human and didn't have crystal balls enabling them to see the future. Knowing that, they allowed for amendments, but those can take decades to pass, meanwhile problems persist.

I think the basic problem is that law-writing is a dumb idea. The notion that a society would be in chaos without laws is a popular myth. I think contemporary panels, unhindered by laws, and given the authority to rule, would make better decisions.

For example, the nation's policy on abortions might be decided by a panel of 33 experts on civil rights. In a democracy, a government for the people, the conscience of the majority in this moral issue would likely be their guide.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Abortion is sin in all Theistic Religions.

Where major religious groups stand on abortion

Suicide is sin in all Theistic Religions.

Meh. Kinda. Concepts of martyrdom are pretty interesting distinctions in some theistic belief systems through history.

Why Abortion is "legal", but Suicide is not?

I'd allow euthanasia, at least, and in my country there are circumstances where that is legal. As is abortion. If you're asking me to explain why laws are inconsistent, though, I'd do so in practical terms, based on election issues, pressure groups and timing...and not so much on scripture or morality (not to discount those entirely).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

America must function. The non-religious way is collective suicide sooner or later.

Boldly stated! Bravo sir.

I mean, not the sentiment, that seems completely unsupported. But the vim! The vigour! Bravo I say!!