^This is the kind of bullshit that doesn't work anymore, especially after Dobbs; when Clarence Thomas says this, believe him - it's what he really wants (other than lots of pr0n) For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell
Yes, he does think those cases should be reconsidered. That has nothing to do with the fact that this case was not about what birth control people can use and was about parental consent, exactly as I said and your own quote even says. Keep saying that's a lie though, I'm sure someone will believe you.
"take it from me, a longtime online pro life zealot who argues that there is no right to privacy and that Griswold should be overturned - this right wing attack on the right to birth control by longtime right wing anti birth control culture warriors in the most notorious judicial fever swamp of right wing culture war has nothing to do with the right's longtime goal of getting rid of legal protections for birth control" - @StupidMoniker I feel stupid even having to type that. Same old ham handed game. Like when you pretended like the Supreme Court didn't first create the individual right to bear arms in Heller - a fact universally recognized by the court itself - and instead tried to tell me it was Dred Scott! I'm still shocked that you went with that - even in internet court that's disbarment worthy ****.
This particular case was about parental consent. Just like there were prior abortion cases about parental consent that didn't overturn Roe. An individual right to bear arms has always existed. It was recognized in a letter of marque by Madison, who wrote the 2nd amendment. I was just pointing out to you that even in Dred Scott they knew there was an individual right to bear arms (which is clear if you read the decision). I'm sorry that Heller wasn't in fact made up out of whole cloth. I know that is the narrative the gun grabbers like to go with. It just isn't true though. There was a long period when we had a court that didn't favor individual rights, especially with regard to the 2nd Amendment. That time didn't start in the 1700s and is now over. I hope it doesn't come back.
Yep, they (and really, you, by association) are coming for birth control incrementally, just like they came for Roe. Thanks for the honesty.
Supreme Court has already ruled on this and so have 42 prior cases. This judge doesn't know what he is doing as he isn;t qualified as a judge and the case will be overturned on appeal. The far right managed to get an unqualified activist put in as a judge to hear these cases. This is something you should be against as a conservative. I thought conservatives did not want judges making up the law to their personal beliefs.
The judge's primary duty is to the Constitution, not to stare decisis. If there are no judges who rule against precedent, nothing would ever change. Where a ruling of a higher court was incorrect, the court has a duty to rule against them and in favor of the Constitution (see Dobbs or Heller, for a couple examples). I don't agree with this court's reasoning (ironically, the court is implementing Substantive Due Process, which @SamFisher seems to love in other cases). The proper argument would have been that Title X funding of birth control is unconstitutional because it is an exercise of power not granted to Congress, but that is a different kettle of fish. Of course I am honest.
Well then this judge should first read the constitution and understand what it says. Fortunately most judges - even conservative judges, will find what he did laughable - and many have already pointed out the legal errors in his ruling. I mean, we can make anyone a judge, give them a copy of the constitution, and tell them to make ruling, but that doesn't mean they should be able to do whatever they want on a whim and throw out what came before them. You can't cry about activist judges when they disagree with you and then say it's ok to be activist and make up your interpretation of the law because the guy shares your values. If that's the case the courts just become part of the political system and lose impartiality.
What does the Constitution say about minors and medical services? This case went specifically to an activist conservative judge.
Birth control is also to help things like acne and hormone regulation…. It’s not purely about birth control.
Nothing. What the Constitution talks about are the powers delegated to Congress. Which of the Article I Section 8 powers discusses funding birth control for minors without parental consent. None? Then there should be no law to that effect.
Or, alternatively, a constitutionalist said Congress is not a body of unlimited power. You are probably right, but there is a legitimate Constitutional argument to reach the same result.
LOL..... funny how "constitutionalist" are usually Christian fundamentalists which is pretty anti constitution.
