Collins: Won’t Support SCOTUS Pick Hostile To Abortion Rights

[Sanguine]

Killing a person who refuses to leave your house and demands that you feed him, clothe him, and serve him hand and foot isn’t murder, is it?

Of course it would be.  Why would you feel otherwise?

[Oceander]

I'll bet you were an A+ legal sophistry student.

If you say so.  After all, you know the magic for getting “email” out of “effects” without resorting to interpretation. 

[Oceander]

Of course it would be.  Why would you feel otherwise?

So there is no right to self-defense, then?

[Bigun]

If you say so.  After all, you know the magic for getting “email” out of “effects” without resorting to interpretation.

Or law councelor.

[corbe]

   @Oceander

[Hoodat]

I still don’t see the word “email” in there.  Perhaps you could underline it?

What part of unreasonable searches and seizures do you not get?

[Cyber Liberty]

I'll bet you were an A+ legal sophistry student.

"Were?"

[DCPatriot]

Respect for precedent is a hallmark of a conservative jurist.  Whatever you may think of Roe v. Wade,  the Constitutional right it represents has been relied on for over forty years - by every woman today of child-bearing age, in fact.   If Roe is to go, it must be done so by the peoples' elected representatives, not the courts.    I think Justice Roberts especially knows this well,   and I do not believe Roe will be overturned no matter who the President nominates to the Court.   But I do not disagree with Sen. Collins'  statement - a Justice that would overturn Roe is not acting as a conservative jurist.

Wonderfully, stated, @Jazzhead

[WingNot]

   @Oceander

More like:

[Hoodat]

Wonderfully, stated, @Jazzhead

Segregation was a precedent established in 1896.

[Hoodat]

So there is no right to self-defense, then?

Of course there is a right to self-defense.

[Oceander]

What part of unreasonable searches and seizures do you not get?

Where is the word “email” in that phrase?  If it wasn’t written into the Constituion explicitly, then by the consensus of the wise here, it’s an act of judicial tyranny to read the word into the Constituion. 

So, again, please underline the word “email” where it expressly appears in the Fourth Amendment. 

[Oceander]

Of course there is a right to self-defense.

Great, then you agree that a person can use deadly force if necessary to remove a trespasser from their home, even if they initially invited that person in.

[Cyber Liberty]

Segregation was a precedent established in 1896.

Ownership of human slaves was a precedent established in 1857.  It took an Amendment to the Constitution and the death of over 500,000 people to overturn it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Great, then you agree that a person can use deadly force if necessary to remove a trespasser from their home, even if they initially invited that person in.

If that person decided to rob you, you betcha. 

[Oceander]

If that person decided to rob you, you betcha. 

If someone tries take what you do not want to give, is that robbery?

[Hoodat]

Where is the word “email” in that phrase?

It isn't.  Only a complete idiot would look for the word 'email' in a treatise on the limitations of government.  The key phrase is about unreasonable searches and seizures, period.

If it wasn’t written into the Constituion explicitly, then by the consensus of the wise here  .  .  .

Uh, no.  That's your own made-up bullshit of an argument, and a very weak and stupid one at that.  As Ayn Rand once wrote, the Constitution is not a charter of government power, but a charter of citizen's protection against its government.  The people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not limited to what could be taken by force at the point of a musket, just as the freedom of the press not limited to what can be produced by a manual printing press, or as freedom of speech is not limited to what can be spoken from atop a wood crate in the public square.

.  .  . it’s an act of judicial tyranny to read the word into the Constituion.

The main difference here is that you nor anyone else sharing your views are 100% unable to read the word 'abortion' into the Constitution.  This is self evident.  Ever since first joining this forum, I have challenged any and all of the Roe-tyranny supporters to cite the Constitutional basis for that decision.  And not one has ever taken me up on it.  Not a single one.  And why do you think that is?  Could it be because no such Constitutional basis exists?

Yet here you are with your 'email' bullshit, hoping that it suffices as a substitute for something you know in your heart does not exist - a Constitutional basis for Roe.

So, again, please underline the word “email” where it expressly appears in the Fourth Amendment.

It's right beside the word 'segregation'.   (See:  Plessy)

[Hoodat]

Great, then you agree that a person can use deadly force if necessary to remove a trespasser from their home, even if they initially invited that person in.

No.  I said that a person has the right to self-defense.  Not sure where that other crap came from.

[XenaLee]

It isn't.  Only a complete idiot would look for the word 'email' in a treatise on the limitations of government.  The key phrase is about unreasonable searches and seizures, period.


Uh, no.  That's your own made-up bullshit of an argument, and a very weak and stupid one at that.  As Ayn Rand once wrote, the Constitution is not a charter of government power, but a charter of citizen's protection against its government.  The people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not limited to what could be taken by force at the point of a musket, just as the freedom of the press not limited to what can be produced by a manual printing press, or as freedom of speech is not limited to what can be spoken from atop a wood crate in the public square.


The main difference here is that you nor anyone else sharing your views are 100% unable to read the word 'abortion' into the Constitution.  This is self evident.  Ever since first joining this forum, I have challenged any and all of the Roe-tyranny supporters to cite the Constitutional basis for that decision.  And not one has ever taken me up on it.  Not a single one.  And why do you think that is?  Could it be because no such Constitutional basis exists?

Yet here you are with your 'email' bullshit, hoping that it suffices as a substitute for something you know in your heart does not exist - a Constitutional basis for Roe.


It's right beside the word 'segregation'.   (See:  Plessy)

 

[Oceander]

No.  I said that a person has the right to self-defense.  Not sure where that other crap came from.

It came from an extended discussion you jumped into the middle of without reading the start.

[Hoodat]

Ownership of human slaves was a precedent established in 1857.  It took an Amendment to the Constitution and the death of over 500,000 people to overturn it.

Yet it only took seven Supreme Court justices to give us segregation.   Same Constitution.  Same amendments.  But somehow, seven Justices invented a right to segregation out of thin air.  It is no different from the Roe Justices inventing a right to abortion out of thin air.  Same Constitution.  Same amendments.

And all it took to overcome segregation was five supreme court justices using the Constitution as a basis for law.  Go figure.  Yet we have members here on a Conservative board extolling the virtues of ditching the Constitution just like the segregationists did, and replacing it with tyranny from the bench.

[Hoodat]

It came from an extended discussion you jumped into the middle of without reading the start.

It is still quite a leap from 'self-defense' to murdering a house guest that has overstayed his welcome.  From a logic standpoint, it could not go unaddressed.

[Oceander]

It isn't.  Only a complete idiot would look for the word 'email' in a treatise on the limitations of government.  The key phrase is about unreasonable searches and seizures, period.


Uh, no.  That's your own made-up bullshit of an argument, and a very weak and stupid one at that.  As Ayn Rand once wrote, the Constitution is not a charter of government power, but a charter of citizen's protection against its government.  The people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not limited to what could be taken by force at the point of a musket, just as the freedom of the press not limited to what can be produced by a manual printing press, or as freedom of speech is not limited to what can be spoken from atop a wood crate in the public square.


The main difference here is that you nor anyone else sharing your views are 100% unable to read the word 'abortion' into the Constitution.  This is self evident.  Ever since first joining this forum, I have challenged any and all of the Roe-tyranny supporters to cite the Constitutional basis for that decision.  And not one has ever taken me up on it.  Not a single one.  And why do you think that is?  Could it be because no such Constitutional basis exists?

Yet here you are with your 'email' bullshit, hoping that it suffices as a substitute for something you know in your heart does not exist - a Constitutional basis for Roe.


It's right beside the word 'segregation'.   (See:  Plessy)

Obviously it’s a pedantic position, but it clearly demonstrates that understanding and applying the Constitution is not some mechanical task that only requires one to read the words written there, and that interpretation of the text, including reading into it, are inescapable facts. 

And the broader point about the Fourth Amendment is that application goes further than merely realizing that a cellphone or a computer is an “effect” which is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the amendment.  For example, letting a third party get involved will often vitiate the protection; however, that general rule does not apply to communications like telephone calls that pass through equipment owned by independent third parties who have no necessary obligation to maintain the speaker’s confidences.  Nonetheless, telephone calls are also protected under the Fourth Amendment, under the general rubric of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” which does not itself appear in the Constitution, and which cannot be easily read into it the way that a cellphone or computer can be read into he term “effects.”

Do you disavow the current reach of the Fourth Amendment as unwarranted judicial activism?

[corbe]

  Yes, it took a Civil War and 5 Jurist to overcome that 3/5th $hit compromise of our Founding Fathers.

[Oceander]

It is still quite a leap from 'self-defense' to murdering a house guest that has overstayed his welcome.  From a logic standpoint, it could not go unaddressed.

So using lethal force to evict a guest who refuses to leave, and who has taken over your house, helped himself to everything, and demands that you serve him hand and foot for the next 18 to 20 years is murder?