Snow flake update (Page 4): The US Supreme Court in its January 22, 1973, decision on Roe v. Wade abolished virtually all a******n restrictions previously imposed at the state level in...

America 1 Loc: South Miami

DASHY wrote:

The Supreme Court mentioned it in its ruling on Row v. Wade.

The US Supreme Court in its January 22, 1973, decision on Roe v. Wade abolished virtually all a******n restrictions previously imposed at the state level in states across the country. That decision marked the beginning of an ongoing national debate on a woman's right to choose to have an a******n. Some Americans think that a******n should be permitted at some stages of fetal development and in certain circumstances, while others strongly oppose a******n under any circumstances. Americans enjoy certain fundamental liberties which are protected by the US Constitution. The right to a******n is not one of these freedoms. The Bill of Rights balances individual rights and majority rule by allowing the majority to pass legislation through its elected representatives. The decision in Roe v. Wade is an example of such legislation passed by pro-choice Supreme Court judges. As such, the author stresses that a conservative Supreme Court could one day enact legislation denying women in the US the right to a******n on demand. It is clear that many states will pass legislation regulating a******n if the Roe v. Wade decision is ever overturned.

In his dissenting opinion, here’s what the late Justice Byron (“Whizzer”) White thought about the matter: “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state a******n statutes…As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
“The Constitution contains no right to a******n.” – Justice Antonin Scalia
https://www.divinemercycare.org/come-to-think-of-it-the-constitutional-right-to-a******n/

DASHY

America 1 wrote:

The US Supreme Court in its January 22, 1973, decision on Roe v. Wade abolished virtually all a******n restrictions previously imposed at the state level in states across the country. That decision marked the beginning of an ongoing national debate on a woman's right to choose to have an a******n. Some Americans think that a******n should be permitted at some stages of fetal development and in certain circumstances, while others strongly oppose a******n under any circumstances. Americans enjoy certain fundamental liberties which are protected by the US Constitution. The right to a******n is not one of these freedoms. The Bill of Rights balances individual rights and majority rule by allowing the majority to pass legislation through its elected representatives. The decision in Roe v. Wade is an example of such legislation passed by pro-choice Supreme Court judges. As such, the author stresses that a conservative Supreme Court could one day enact legislation denying women in the US the right to a******n on demand. It is clear that many states will pass legislation regulating a******n if the Roe v. Wade decision is ever overturned.

In his dissenting opinion, here’s what the late Justice Byron (“Whizzer”) White thought about the matter: “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state a******n statutes…As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
“The Constitution contains no right to a******n.” – Justice Antonin Scalia
https://www.divinemercycare.org/come-to-think-of-it-the-constitutional-right-to-a******n/

The US Supreme Court in its January 22, 1973, deci... (show quote)

The Row v. Wade decision granting a woman's right to privacy regarding her decision to have an a******n without excessive government restrictions had two dissenting opinions. The dissenters believe that at the moment of conception, "persons" are in possession of their lives. At that moment, mothers don't even know if "persons" are created. Excessive government restrictions at the moment of conception is excessive. Conservatives usually h**e excessive government restrictions. On this particular question, they seem to welcome it.

bggamers Loc: georgia

DASHY wrote:

The Row v. Wade decision granting a woman's right ... (show quote)

Read an article where they are considering allowing the father to sue to stop an a******n where the women are saying it's my body my decision and father saying but the baby is partly mine. The fact that this ONE ruling and subject is still being fought over since inception is mind boggling is an understatement

America 1 Loc: South Miami

DASHY wrote:

The Row v. Wade decision granting a woman's right ... (show quote)

How about welcoming the constitution as it was originally written and intended.
Along with its amendments.
You constantly post throwing out both.

The Ms.

DASHY wrote:

The Row v. Wade decision granting a woman's right ... (show quote)

Dashy, think you misunderstand.... do not care what you do in your bedroom or kitchen floor..... at the moment of conception. Believe concern is about murdering a baby.....want to disagree....let’s see what you would say if women were offered money not to abort!!!!! I agree with a women’s right to choose..... but we then have a right to say NO.... immoral, wrong!!!! Just some thoughts....

archie bunker Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

The Supreme Court mentioned it in its ruling on Row v. Wade.

So, 9 people legalized murder in spite of the fact that a******n is not a word in the US Constitution........

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

New York Attorney General, Letitia James, said the NRA "operated as a breeding ground for greed, abuse and brazen illegality." The same could be said of the Trump Organization. Stay tuned for breaking news on this topic.

I don't think so. The House of Representatives would be a better example.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

Are you a criminal, or just an ordinary hard-working gun lover? Enforcing gun laws are directed at preventing determined criminals from k*****g innocent people with their guns (or your guns). You will probably be left out of the target population.

You are out of your mind if you believe that. How does making legally owned firearms hard to buy, time consuming, and artificially expensive keep them out of the hands of criminals? The most used examples are Chicago and Washington DC. The strictest, harshest, and most unconstitutional gun laws in America. Does it seem like either city has a shortage of illegal firearms?

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

The Row v. Wade decision granting a woman's right ... (show quote)

Odd.
You would seem to be a strict Constitutionalist when it comes to R vs. W. Strange that you change your tune when it comes to the 2ndA that is ACTURALLY WRITTEN into the Constitution.
Strange and odd to be sure....but not too surprising.

Capt-jack Loc: Home

DASHY wrote:

The stated purpose of the NRA is to "promote and encourage" shooting rifles. It receives funding from its millions of pro-gun members. It uses this money to buy the v**es of Republican lawmakers. Recently, some NRA members could not resist stealing from their own club funds. The Big Steal. Now with the NRA broke, we might finally get a chance to enact legislation that produces badly needed common-sense gun regulations. https://www.grunge.com/315596/heres-why-the-nra-is-broke/

I wonder why you never mention Geroge Soros, O' I forgot, he's one of your Klan who buys v**es for the N**i party.

DASHY

RandyBrian wrote:

Odd.
You would seem to be a strict Constitutionalist when it comes to R vs. W. Strange that you change your tune when it comes to the 2ndA that is ACTURALLY WRITTEN into the Constitution.
Strange and odd to be sure....but not too surprising.

I believe the Row v. Wade ruling is a good one. The privacy of all Americans is protected against government intrusion. I thought conservatives and Republicans h**e government regulations. Didn't Trump just spend 4 years trying to overturn government regulations?

DASHY

Capt-jack wrote:

I wonder why you never mention Geroge Soros, O' I forgot, he's one of your Klan who buys v**es for the N**i party.

The Democratic goal regarding gun ownership is not to disarm American citizens. It is to try to prevent criminal gun violence against innocent people. We should all have that goal. Democrats, and George Soros are interested in things like promoting equal access to justice for victims of gun violence.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

DASHY wrote:

The Democratic goal regarding gun ownership is not to disarm American citizens. It is to try to prevent criminal gun violence against innocent people. We should all have that goal. Democrats, and George Soros are interested in things like promoting equal access to justice for victims of gun violence.

Dream on.

DASHY

The Ms. wrote:

Dashy, think you misunderstand.... do not care what you do in your bedroom or kitchen floor..... at the moment of conception. Believe concern is about murdering a baby.....want to disagree....let’s see what you would say if women were offered money not to abort!!!!! I agree with a women’s right to choose..... but we then have a right to say NO.... immoral, wrong!!!! Just some thoughts....

How can you "agree with a woman's right to choose" and then assert your right to judge her choice? Who are you to judge?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

DASHY wrote:

The Democratic goal regarding gun ownership is not to disarm American citizens. It is to try to prevent criminal gun violence against innocent people. We should all have that goal. Democrats, and George Soros are interested in things like promoting equal access to justice for victims of gun violence.

What laws imposed on legal gun owners will prevent criminal gun violence against innocent people?
How will registering my guns with the Federal Government prevent criminal gun violence?

If that would truly work, then shouldn't I also have to register my hands, feet, hammers, cutlery, beer bottles, sticks, and stones in order to prevent violence?