Thread: Cheers, Misc. To a 6-3 majority.
10-27-2020, 03:36 PM
-
#31
10-27-2020, 03:38 PM
-
#32
- LovePollution
- ████████████████
-
- LovePollution
- ████████████████
- Join Date: Jun 2010
- Location: London, England, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 23
- Posts: 10,697
- Rep Power: 21332
-
-
Do you guys genuinely believe Trump will win at this point? Seems like the media and other megacorporations are going all out to ensure a Biden victory.
How dare you!
Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.
LTC
10-27-2020, 03:50 PM
-
#33
- Austanian
- IDDQD
-
- Austanian
- IDDQD
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Location: Coeur D Alene, Idaho, United States
- Posts: 22,120
- Rep Power: 89692
-
-
Originally Posted By LovePollution⏩
I have Trump up to 254 with him needing to win either MI or PA, both states I have him marginally behind in.Do you guys genuinely believe Trump will win at this point? Seems like the media and other megacorporations are going all out to ensure a Biden victory.
10-27-2020, 04:02 PM
-
#34
- EasternHammer
- Registered User
-
- EasternHammer
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2009
- Age: 39
- Posts: 1,754
- Rep Power: 7913
-
-
Originally Posted By CuttyUnderleaf⏩
I will give you a serious answer because I doubt anyone else will. Back in 1965, the court took a case known as Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the issue was over whether any state could pass a law banning anyone from promoting or distributing contraceptives. Now, the Constitution makes no mention of a "right to privacy" but the court essentially invented one on the spot. Justice William O. Douglas famously claimed that the privacy right "is found in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights,' ergo that all that the first ten amendments imply some nebulous right to privacy. Unfortunately, this rationale has become an umbrella for all sorts of nonsense not actually contemplated by the Constitution. Just a few years later, the Court used this reasoning to invent a right to abortion on demand, which again was not mentioned in the Constitution. This practice of mental gymnastics to insert moral or policy preferences into law against the plain meaning of the text is usually known as "judicial activism."Can you give me an example?
And the reason why I ask is because to me it seems like conservatives are leading with their morals, especially religious ones, where Roe vs Wade is concerned.
And the reason why I ask is because to me it seems like conservatives are leading with their morals, especially religious ones, where Roe vs Wade is concerned.
It is important to note, that I am not trying to suggest that either contraceptives nor abortion are impermissible in the United States. The people, through the legislature, could vote to safeguard either at the state or federal level. The issue to which many conservatives object is the fact that the judiciary has inappropriately ventured into making law and policy, infringing on the prerogatives of the elected branches of government.
10-27-2020, 04:09 PM
-
#35
10-27-2020, 04:47 PM
-
#36
- MoeBettuh
- Golden boy
-
- MoeBettuh
- Golden boy
- Join Date: Aug 2012
- Location: United States
- Posts: 17,468
- Rep Power: 142304
-
-
Originally Posted By CuttyUnderleaf⏩
A conservative leaning court will likely offer protections against things like gun grabs (etc.) and outrageous tax schemes that liberals are likely to push.What’s to gain from having a super conservative majority in the SCOTUS. Srs question btw
Someone give me an example and how would it be different if the court was super liberal.
Someone give me an example and how would it be different if the court was super liberal.
MFC
drum, it holds fifty, uh
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-

- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts