Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP's question seems like it is designed to paint all Conservatives with the same brush.
I am a Conservative. I believe very strictly in the Constitution. Therefore, I would not overturn those rulings, in keeping with the 9th Ammendment. The 9th Ammendment, in short, states that just because something isn't explicitly spelled out (like in Ammendments 1, 2 or, 4), doesn't mean those rights don't exist.
Yes, both should be repealed. Those rulings were unconstitutional and should never have been made. The judicial branch has no authority to create law as they have been doing. With our new conservative majority I hope to see all that changed, even rolled back to some extent.
Abortion and gay marriage are state issues, that is what the constitution calls for.
"The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution." - Antonin Scalia
The OP's question seems like it is designed to paint all Conservatives with the same brush.
I am a Conservative. I believe very strictly in the Constitution. Therefore, I would not overturn those rulings, in keeping with the 9th Ammendment. The 9th Ammendment, in short, states that just because something isn't explicitly spelled out (like in Ammendments 1, 2 or, 4), doesn't mean those rights don't exist.
I’m hoping that the Supreme Court keeps these two important issues intact. I don’t understand why there are people who want to tell complete strangers what to do with their lives. Both, Roe v Wade and Same-Sex Marriage should stay forever. I absolutely don’t trust Kavanaugh though!
The OP's question seems like it is designed to paint all Conservatives with the same brush.
I am a Conservative. I believe very strictly in the Constitution. Therefore, I would not overturn those rulings, in keeping with the 9th Ammendment. The 9th Ammendment, in short, states that just because something isn't explicitly spelled out (like in Ammendments 1, 2 or, 4), doesn't mean those rights don't exist.
And then you must read the 10th to get a firm idea who has the say in either issue. There is no place that allows the federal government to even be involved in either issue, within the constitution.
The forgotten Amendment, the Spast Supreme Courts have eliminated from existence:
""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.""
I am really concerned that our country is going in the wrong direction. Can you imagine how many lives will be destroyed if such things were to be overturned?
I am not sure I understand your point.
How would lives be destroyed if abortion is overturned federally? you do realize that it will still be allowed in the various states that want it like before, right?
Also, it would seem logical that making abortion more restrictive would actually save lives, correct?
As to homo marriage being overturned, again how would lives be destroyed? Until just recently and throughout human history marriage was only allowed between heteros, yet there were still homos that engaged in relationships.
Heck many heteros have relationships outside of wedlock, so I suspect homos will continue to survive as they did prior to the scotus decision.
So unless you were intentionally being over dramatic, I don't understand your reasoning.
What's wrong with discrimination in the private and personal realm, that isn't done by the State and has no force of law?
To discriminate literally means to choose or select. Which we are all free to do, and always will be, no matter who says otherwise. People can decide what they like, what they do not like, who they wish to associate with and who they do not, and who they enter into contracts with and who they do not.
And this ruling by the way infringes on the law regarding contracts...which says that contracts compelled by force, or in any fashion coerced, are null and void. Because contracts must be voluntary. So that means the government cannot force people into commerce, or the resulting contract is unenforceable. This is the law of the land in all states, by the way.
In any case, private discrimination is fine. Its only State discrimination, in the application of adverse law, that runs afoul of the Constitution. Private discrimination is not even contemplated by the Constitution, because in the private and personal realm, individuals always have the freedom to associate or not, contract or not, etc and so forth and that cannot be compelled by the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapa1
I’m hoping that the Supreme Court keeps these two important issues intact. I don’t understand why there are people who want to tell complete strangers what to do with their lives. Both, Roe v Wade and Same-Sex Marriage should stay forever. I absolutely don’t trust Kavanaugh though!
There isn't any such thing as "same sex marriage" though. It isn't telling anyone what to do with their lives in any way, either. Its simply not extending the franchise of marriage to individuals who by definition can not be parties to the same marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
True. But Roe v Wade ruled on privacy/self-determination grounds. The Constitution does not explicitly give you the right to privacy either, but the court found an implied right underlying the BoR and in settled case law.
What does abortion have to do with privacy though? There isn't any nexus for the government to protect this act under the imaginary auspices of privacy...its 100% an activist ruling, based on an invented idea of privacy that applies only to abortion - obviously its contrived only for that purpose. This is the exact example of what is wrong with judicial activism...you get defective rulings that make no sense because they have no basis in the Constitution or in the law.
These arise because some activists didn't like the way the laws were written, they didn't like the world as it was, and thus decided they would rule so that it would be the way they would like it. Well, that's not how the law works. You can't DO that. You have to deal with the law as it is, and was originally intended, NOT the way you wish it were, or the way anyone else alive thinks it should be. The remedy for that isn't to make law from the bench...the remedy is to tell the legislature to make a new law. That's THEIR job. As a justice your job is simply to adjudicate questions of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RageX
The OP's question seems like it is designed to paint all Conservatives with the same brush.
I am a Conservative. I believe very strictly in the Constitution. Therefore, I would not overturn those rulings, in keeping with the 9th Ammendment. The 9th Ammendment, in short, states that just because something isn't explicitly spelled out (like in Ammendments 1, 2 or, 4), doesn't mean those rights don't exist.
Yes but the corollary is that it also doesn't mean that they DO exist. Rights not enumerated must be rights necessary and adjunct to the natural rights of man. I don't know how anyone can have a right to kill another human being, or the right to demand a marital status under a government franchise.
9A is just a reminder that the inalienable rights of man are nuanced and by virtue of the generous and intentionally vague or broad verbiage, comprise more than can possibly be enumerated for the purposes of illustration.
Thus the right to Life, contains within its meaning, a right to that which Life relies on for existence. So if for example you need a particular medicine to stay alive, you cannot be denied the use of that medicine by
the government, because to do so is a State action that prevents the Right to Life from being exercised or enjoyed. It does NOT mean that any other person or entity is obligated to provide it for you or to you or do so at any specific level of cost or availability.
It simply means you cannot be enjoined from its use.
There isn't any such thing as "same sex marriage" though. It isn't telling anyone what to do with their lives in any way, either. Its simply not extending the franchise of marriage to individuals who by definition can not be parties to the same marriage.
We’ve been over this before! There is Same-Sex Marriage in this country. I’m legally married to my partner. Why are you always trying to dismiss our marriage like it doesn’t exist?
intentionally vague or broad verbiage, comprise more than can possibly be enumerated for the purposes of illustration.
Thus the right to Life, contains within its meaning, a right to that which Life relies on for existence. So if for example you need a particular medicine to stay alive, you cannot be denied the use of that medicine by
the government, because to do so is a State action that prevents the Right to Life from being exercised or enjoyed. It does NOT mean that any other person or entity is obligated to provide it for you or to you or do so at any specific level of cost or availability.
It simply means you cannot be enjoined from its use.
In other words, the government does not have the right to take medical care away from you after you have had enough money to pay for it, but the government must not help you if you are penniless, sick and dying in the street. If everybody is too selfish to give up money to provide needed medical care, then you must die in the street.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
