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

[Jazzhead]

"Precedent" is very important to people who have divorced themselves from the direct meaning of the words of the Constitution, and instead place their trust in the tender sensibilities of robed tyrants.

Yet that is how our Republic works.   Who you call "robed tyrants" interpreted the Constitution to forbid the States from outlawing abortion,  recognizing the fundamental natural right of self-determination as extending to the female of the species.    That right has been relied on by women to order their lives for over 40 years.  Yet you now want the "robed tyrants" to take it away.

Why not recognize the limits of the "robed tyrants" and work for a Constitutional amendment if you feel so strongly that the State compel women to reproduce?    What clamor for such "tyrants" to do your dirty work for you?     

[XenaLee]

Marbury v. Madison is the only thing standing between an effective Second Amendment and that provision being ignored with impunity by gun-control friendly legislatures. 

You cannot have your cake, and eat it, too.

Ehh.... please explain how that ruling impacts gun-control friendly legislatures.  I haven't had my caffeine yet and I'm a little "slow" this am.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yet that is how our Republic works.   Who you call "robed tyrants" interpreted the Constitution to forbid the States from outlawing abortion,  recognizing the fundamental natural right of self-determination as extending to the female of the species.    That right has been relied on by women to order their lives for over 40 years.  Yet you now want the "robed tyrants" to take it away.

Why not recognize the limits of the "robed tyrants" and work for a Constitutional amendment if you feel so strongly that the State compel women to reproduce?    What clamor for such "tyrants" to do your dirty work for you?     

I am quite willing to recognize those limits.  You first.

You must have me confused with somebody who wants unelected Judges to do my "dirty work."

[Cyber Liberty]

Laughing at people is no way to convince them.  But then, you wouldn't be you if you didn't.

[skeeter]

"Precedent" is very important to people who have divorced themselves from the direct meaning of the words of the Constitution, and instead place their trust in the tender sensibilities of robed tyrants.

Its funny how the left now falls back on precedent, when they spent the past 60 years reading "penumbras and emanations" into the Constitution.

[Cyber Liberty]

Its funny how the left now falls back on precedent, when they spent the past 60 years reading "penumbras and emanations" into the Constitution.

What were once penumbras are now precedents.  It's how a ratchet works.

[Oceander]

Ehh.... please explain how that ruling impacts gun-control friendly legislatures.  I haven't had my caffeine yet and I'm a little "slow" this am.

This am is no different from any other time of day, then.

Marbury v. Madison says that the courts have the final say on what the law is, or is not.  Remove that, and the courts would no longer be in a position to say, for example, that the Second is a personal right and not merely a collective right that the individual states can do away with if they do not wish to have a militia. 

[Oceander]

Laughing at people is no way to convince them.  But then, you wouldn't be you if you didn't.

Some people deserve no more. 

[Jazzhead]

This am is no different from any other time of day, then.

Marbury v. Madison says that the courts have the final say on what the law is, or is not.  Remove that, and the courts would no longer be in a position to say, for example, that the Second is a personal right and not merely a collective right that the individual states can do away with if they do not wish to have a militia.

Yup.   Those who clamor for the judge-created right to abortion to be taken away after forty years better hope that same activist judge won't take away their judge-created individual right to bear arms after only about ten years.   

[XenaLee]

Its funny how the left now falls back on precedent, when they spent the past 60 years reading "penumbras and emanations" into the Constitution.

It's a matter of whatever is convenient to them and to their agenda....

at any given moment.

[Hoodat]

The Constitution of the United States says that abortion is legal.

lol

[Hoodat]

The existing precedent is that women have the right to decide for themselves whether to reproduce. 

Women already have that right.  And that right has absolutely positively NOTHING to do with abortion or a State's right to regulate it.

[XenaLee]

This am is no different from any other time of day, then.

Marbury v. Madison says that the courts have the final say on what the law is, or is not.  Remove that, and the courts would no longer be in a position to say, for example, that the Second is a personal right and not merely a collective right that the individual states can do away with if they do not wish to have a militia.

Well how really convenient for the idiot left, then..... since they have embedded the "courts" with rogue, leftist judges that they feel confident will rule in their favor.   Sorry.... BUT.... that is NOT how the US Constitution is supposed to work.  That is a recipe for judicial tyranny, in fact.  And you damned well know that.... or should.   But then, you being 'one of em' and all.... kind of explains it all.

And your lameazz insult is duly noted.  Why did I think that just once I could converse with you in a civil manner without your usual bullshit.  Silly moi.

[edpc]

Yup.  Those who clamor for the judge-created right to abortion to be taken away after forty years better hope that same activist judge won't take away their judge-created individual right to bear arms after only about ten years.

I think the issue most people have is one (bearing arms) is specifically mentioned, while abortion is not.

[Hoodat]

Its funny how the left now falls back on precedent, when they spent the past 60 years reading "penumbras and emanations" into the Constitution.

Democrats did the same thing with Plessy.  And with Everson, even though they actually lost that case.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well how really convenient for the idiot left, then..... since they have embedded the "courts" with rogue, leftist judges that they feel confident will rule in their favor.   Sorry.... BUT.... that is NOT how the US Constitution is supposed to work.  That is a recipe for judicial tyranny, in fact.  And you damned well know that.... or should.   But then, you being 'one of em' and all.... kind of explains it all.

And your lameazz insult is duly noted.  Why did I think that just once I could converse with you in a civil manner without your usual bullshit.  Silly moi.

Yup.  That's why leftists prefer the courts to enter the political atmosphere:  It's so they can do the "dirty work," as it's been coined, without the ugliness of elections.  The definition of "tyrant" is in there.

This is why the left is OK with SCOTUS Justices like Ginsberg openly declaring their intent to fashion all laws to meet their sensibility as to how things should be.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think the issue most people have is one (bearing arms) is specifically mentioned, while abortion is not.

Butbutbutbut "Heller!"  The "Predicate Clause!!!"

[Cyber Liberty]

Some people deserve no more.

Then everybody you laugh at should put you on "Ignore."  They don't deserve you either.

[Oceander]

Well how really convenient for the idiot left, then..... since they have embedded the "courts" with rogue, leftist judges that they feel confident will rule in their favor.   Sorry.... BUT.... that is NOT how the US Constitution is supposed to work.  That is a recipe for judicial tyranny, in fact.  And you damned well know that.... or should.   But then, you being 'one of em' and all.... kind of explains it all.

And your lameazz insult is duly noted.  Why did I think that just once I could converse with you in a civil manner without your usual bullshit.  Silly moi.

You clearly don’t know how law works.  And yet, that doesn’t stop you from opining to kingdom come. 

[Hoodat]

You clearly don’t know how law works.

You clearly don't know what the Constitution says.

[XenaLee]

You clearly don’t know how law works.  And yet, that doesn’t stop you from opining to kingdom come.

Your leftie-like air of superiority is also duly noted....

AS USUAL. 

And.... in case you aren't bright enough to notice.... this is a political discussion forum...

where everyone "opines".  (obligatory duh)

[Oceander]

You clearly don't know what the Constitution says.

I know exactly what it says. 

[Oceander]

Your leftie-like air of superiority is also duly noted....

AS USUAL. 

And.... in case you aren't bright enough to notice.... this is a political discussion forum...

where everyone "opines".  (obligatory duh)

True, they do, but so rarely do they mistake their own ignorance for such a vast expanse of wisdom. 

[WingNot]

I know exactly what it says.

It is easier to understand than Tax code.

[INVAR]

The Constitution doesn't mean jack shit people.  That is no longer the law, or how 'law' works in this country anymore.

It's what judges in black robes say the law is, that is the law.

Enumerated rights are just government-granted privileges that can rightfully be reasonably regulated so as to abolish them in all practicality, and 'rights' not enumerated that were found in the penumbras and emanations of the ether of the text - are inalienable, unassailable and immutable divine rights that no one can touch, regulate or interfere with. 

Like Abortion.

Welcome to Amerika - where the right to liberty outweighs any right to life.  Even though it usually requires one to have life in order to have liberty.  But hey - we're talking "the law" here, so if it makes no sense to us mere mortals, who cares?  The precedents are law as interpreted by men who are of the correct political ideology.