God Bless Thomas and Alito

[TreeFrogTrader]

There is no right to own a gun for individuals in the constitution. That’s a fact. And I get your side has finally imposed this long standing fallacy of individual right to own a gun on the country through the courts but it still doesn’t wipe away the 220 years of the proper meaning of 2a prior to Heller.

It is just the way your leftard mind works.

You see a right to abortion and a right to privacy in the Constitution but there IS ABSOLTUTELY FUCKING NOTHING THERE other than what some leftards pulled out of their arses. Even Ruthie agrees with that.

But, in contrast, the right to bear arms IS ABSOLUTELY SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED AND ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION. You and Chief Justice Whoopi Goldberg cannot see it. That's fine. Tards gotta tard.

That right to bear arms has absolutely, been settled law and practice since the founding of the country. And yet you and your ilk claim to have a boner about making sure that settled law is never changed. What a farce y'all are.

You clowns think that if you could go back in time and ask the framers if the constitution they are proposing includes the right to abortion. Ahhh, I don't think so. It is a constructed argument.

But the right of the citizenry to bear arms personally and in support of local militias? Most definitely intended and most definitely not taken away over two centuries because the fact that it is in the constitution caused it to be supremely settled law.

Anyway, as I said, you go ahead and be right about everything- the gun case, the abortion case. Most likely the lower courts and the states will follow the Supreme Court, not what you and Whoopi feeeeeeeel.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Merrick Garland has shown his utter bias and good thing that he was not confirmed as US Supreme Court justice. The mess extreme liberals create when you put them in high positions of power. They abuse their powers instead of upholding the laws as written. The problem with extreme liberals is they ignore the fact that they swore an oath to uphold the laws of the United States---not just those laws they agree with.

Although the Senate numbers would preclude a successful impeachment, Garland should be impeached and removed from office along with Myorkas.

Their facilitation of the collapse of the southern border is a national nightmare and a high crime as that term and charge was known and used in British Law at the time the constitution was adopted.

 

[UsualName]

Not sure what the point of the video clip is. Ruth favored abortion access for women but nevertheless ended supporting Roe but acknowledging that the reasoning of it was flawed and that her hope was that it would be settled by legislatures.

It remains an inconvenient truth that Ruth felt that the right to privacy argument was shaky and had been pulled out of someone's arse.

It’s not inconvenient at all for a justice to have an opinion and uphold the law. It’s a fact of life. Roberts disagreed with the Dobbs decision to fully repeal Roe but sided with the decision in the end.

But let’s say we can just overturn state decisis. What about overturning Marbury v Madison. Nothing holds anymore. You guys want to pretend like this is just a simple carve out and “correction” then why can’t we correct Marbury v Madison?

I will tell you what else too, Monday is another big day. People are looking at the w Virginia EPA case as though the court will just limit its ruling to the EPA. Au contraré. This court could undermine the entire fabric of the federal government to regulate the nation. My money is this will be a Gorsuch decision, it’s why he’s there in the first place.

And as you like to say, more to come. This court seems to want to turn us back into a confederation despite the constitution. And the hits will just get bigger and bigger. You right wingers have taken a lot for granted. These justices are real conservatives and I don’t think you and your ilk actually understand what that means.

 

[UsualName]

It is just the way your leftard mind works.

You see a right to abortion and a right to privacy in the Constitution but there IS ABSOLTUTELY FUCKING NOTHING THERE other than what some leftards pulled out of their arses. Even Ruthie agrees with that.

But, in contrast, the right to bear arms IS ABSOLUTELY SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED AND ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION. You and Chief Justice Whoopi Goldberg cannot see it. That's fine. Tards gotta tard.

That right to bear arms has absolutely, been settled law and practice since the founding of the country. And yet you and your ilk claim to have a boner about making sure that settled law is never changed. What a farce y'all are.

You clowns think that if you could go back in time and ask the framers if the constitution they are proposing includes the right to abortion. Ahhh, I don't think so. It is a constructed argument.

But the right of the citizenry to bear arms personally and in support of local militias? Most definitely intended and most definitely not taken away over two centuries because the fact that it is in the constitution caused it to be supremely settled law.

Anyway, as I said, you go ahead and be right about everything- the gun case, the abortion case. Most likely the lower courts and the states will follow the Supreme Court, not what you and Whoopi feeeeeeeel.

Lies.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

But let’s say we can just overturn state decisis. What about overturning Marbury v Madison. Nothing holds anymore. You guys want to pretend like this is just a simple carve out and “correction” then why can’t we correct Marbury v Madison?

Pretty lame. Comparison to Marbury is not even close. Marbury went to the very epicenter of the Constitution and the Framer's intent. Roe was just based on some fake right to privacy that exists nowhere in the Constitution and don't even bother to argue what the Framers intended for abortion rights. They would puke.

So, according to your reasoning, Plessy v. Ferguson could never be overturned because "nothing holds anymore" and that would mean that even Marbury would fall?

Breathe into a paper bag a little.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Lies.

Sure, well now that you and your ilk are out of constitution arguments that anyone cares about- especially the Supreme Court- I guess it is back to court packing and attempting to assassinate justices.

Not the smoothest way to go but predictable.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

 

[UsualName]

Pretty lame. Comparison to Marbury is not even close. Marbury went to the very epicenter of the Constitution and the Framer's intent. Roe was just based on some fake right to privacy that exists nowhere in the Constitution and don't even bother to argue what the Framers intended for abortion rights. They would puke.

So, according to your reasoning, Plessy v. Ferguson could never be overturned because "nothing holds anymore" and that would mean that even Marbury would fall?

Breathe into a paper bag a little.

Just show us all where “judicial review” is enumerated in the constitution please.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Just show us all where “judicial review” is enumerated in the constitution please.

Show where I said it is.

I said that the issue goes to the core/epicenter of the constitution and both sides relied upon core constitutional arguments and intent of the framers.

Versus Roe where, like, why bother? The right to privacy is not in the constitution and the framers expressed no intent in regard to abortions. Nothing from the framers, nothing from the constitution. Just a constructed argument pulled out of some lefty arses. Arguments that have now been relegated to the trash bin of history.

Also, I asked whether you would not have overturned Plessy because that would mean that Marbury would or could fall and that "nothing would hold anymore." Reasons you give for not overturning Roe. I did not see your answer on that.

NEVERMIND.

 

[UsualName]

Show where I said it is.

I said that the issue goes to the core/epicenter of the constitution and both sides relied upon core constitutional arguments and intent of the framers.

Versus Roe where, like, why bother? The right to privacy is not in the constitution and the framers expressed no intent in regard to abortions. Nothing from the framers, nothing from the constitution. Just a constructed argument pulled out of some lefty arses. Arguments that have now been relegated to the trash bin of history.

Also, I asked whether you would not have overturned Plessy because that would mean that Marbury would or could fall and that "nothing would hold anymore." Reasons you give for not overturning Roe. I did not see your answer on that.

NEVERMIND.

Nevermind, exactly. Because your argument and Alito et al’s argument is shit. Claiming privacy is a scam because it’s not enumerated undermines the court itself. But you guys aren’t the thinking type. Now are you?

You’re welcome by the way. You should be paying for this kind of schooling.