A question for our right wing posters.

[Sean]

Nobody is saying different. The SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott and all were heard as well. Was it right?

You really don't understand how the law works, do you?

 

[Sean]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ah, so an embryo is a person. So, appendectomies are murder?

 

[Peregrinator]

The 5th says you can infringe "The fact is the government can infringe upon your life, liberty, or property, as long as there's due process and we've had a right to be heard."

Really? Where?

I hate it when the cat does my typing for me.

 

[Sean]

I hate it when the cat does my typing for me.

Sh, I'm making him look a dick. I'll come back to that.

 

[John Doe]

Sh, I'm making him look a dick. I'll come back to that.

He doesn't need any help for that.

Are you bored?

 

[RobDownSouth]

You mean like racial and gender discrimination?

I've found that both liberals and conservatives have specific "moral" behaviors they feel government should regulate, and that regulation should stop when government seeks to regulate outside the particular "hot buttons" of bias.

racial and gender discrimination are "moral" concerns?

I agree with the thrust of your second paragraph, if I were a little more sober I'd find and link to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's excellent essay on exactly what and who are protected from what and why.

 

[Sean]

He doesn't need any help for that.

Are you bored?

Done the raid on wow, vp capped. Tormenting bigots is just fun.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The constitution doesn't grant rights, it puts limits on government. Show me where it allows the gubmint to tell a woman what to do with her body.

You are really too intelligent to be playing this meme. As you well know, the constitutionality of abortion is a far broader issue than the singular relationship of the government and a pregnant woman. As the Supreme Court wrote in Roe v. Wade:

"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone."​

And later,

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."​

If you would like to get the full richness of the government's answer to your constitutional challenge, I would invite you to read the opinion in its entirety.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

 

[Sean]

You are really too intelligent to be playing this meme. As you well know, the constitutionality of abortion is a far broader issue than the singular relationship of the government and a pregnant woman. As the Supreme Court wrote in Roe v. Wade:

"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone."​

And later,

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."​

If you would like to get the full richness of the government's answer to your constitutional challenge, I would invite you to read the opinion in its entirety.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

I've read the opinion in its entirety. I'd thank you if you'd fuck off when I'm tormenting a retard.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

racial and gender discrimination are "moral" concerns?

I agree with the thrust of your second paragraph, if I were a little more sober I'd find and link to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's excellent essay on exactly what and who are protected from what and why.

Of course they are. As John Doe said moments ago, most law has a moral component to it.

But I would be happy to hear your definition of morality and the nature of it that places it outside the legitimate purview of potential government regulation.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I've read the opinion in its entirety. I'd thank you if you'd fuck off when I'm tormenting a retard.

Too late. You asked to be shown and I showed. I hope you don't expect an apology.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Too late. You asked to be shown and I showed. I hope you don't expect an apology.

Apology? Fuck no. You want to do Roe v Wade one night?

So far you look like a complete asshole. I'm about as far from being tormented as I can be. So far you've been schooled.

LMAO.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Apology? Fuck no. You want to do Roe v Wade one night?

Whenever you'd like.

(Not immediately, unfortunately. Gotta watch Louisville vs. Vandy. )

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Whenever you'd like.

That would be fun.

Prepare your case, counselor.

 

[Sean]

Talking about looking like a dick. Who said this, wino?

Shut up, dick.

 

[garbage can]

Ahh, a duel in the sun

Private SeanH selects his weapon of choice.... an AK-47

Colonel Hogan selects his weapon of choice.... A rocket propelled grenade.

 

[unregistered]