Let's get one fact straight about the Constitution

Those are all decent points, and if they represent our national identity, why must they be illegitimately imposed by a handful of unelected judges rather that passed by our representative legislatures?

Justice Thomas Calls for End to Legislating from the Bench, Left Responds By Sounding Even Crazier:

​

Due Process guarantees process, it not divine previously unstated rights for judges to declare when the time is right, though the Privileges and Immunities Clause, of the same amendment, is capable of that task.

"Justice Clarence Thomas stated that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” that is, the Supreme Court decisions that discovered “rights” to contraception, homosexual activity, and same-sex marriage. Contrary to Leftist hysteria, this doesn’t mean that these things will suddenly be outlawed and we will be plunged into a Leftist nightmare world of Handmaid’s Tale pseudo-Christian theocracy: just as Dobbs doesn’t actually outlaw abortion but leaves it up to the states, so any overturning of those other rulings would throw those issues back to the states as well. it only means that the possibility has opened anew that the Supreme Court might actually base its decision on law, not on the Leftist agenda."

If we truly have a national consensus in these areas, then why is that we have no supporting federal legislation affirming that?

"Thomas, and Dobbs v. Jackson in general, have given the practice of legislating from the bench a body blow from which it may not recover. Thomas pointed out that “substantive due process is often wielded to ‘disastrous ends,'” and illustrated his point with a reference to the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that slaves brought into federal territories that outlawed slavery were still slaves. He noted that Dred Scott was only overruled “at the price of immeasurable human suffering,” and that Roe and its companion judgment Casey were “two of this Court’s ‘most notoriously incorrect’ substantive due process decisions,” and were only overturned “after more than 63 million abortions have been performed.” Thomas concluded, “The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable.”

Then it's time the Court left legislating to the Legislature.

​

 

Quote for us the Constitutional Text that supports and I'll show you why that claim by the Court is a fiction, just like the Court's claim in Dred Scott and Plessy were fictions and Plessy was in place longer than Roe before a later Court disabused the Plessy Court of their fiction.

Are you a biologist? Further, while Thomas wants such issues anchored in the Privileges and Immunities Clause rather than the fiction of "Substantive" Due process, no other Justice joined him in this. If you think a future majority will, and you are uncertain that once the right is unanchored from the fiction of "substantive" Due Process that it may not be anchored into the Privileges and Immunities Clause, then you better get cracking on some national legislation. Given that, is all this J6 crap really the best use of the House's time?

And if Justices will no longer do the work of the Legislature, there is no longer any reason for Leftists to hunt them.

​

Plessy was in place for over 50 years, are you demanding that we return to "Separate but Equal"?

 

Abortion hasn't been banned, though. Anti-gunners want an all out ban on guns, nationwide.

 

You obviously haven't read the decision. You should and you won't expose yourself as being totally misinformed.

Hint: the court's decision doesn't ban abortion.

 

So nope women STILL won't have a choice in those states.

 

Not at all. We propose to fall in line with other democracies, that have representative democracy on legislation (no one is suggesting getting rid of the house or senate), but pure democracy in choosing the president. All the other western nations are that way. What the founding fathers feared were 'factions' with an anti-founding father agenda. We also want to make the senate more reflective of the electorate. Wyoming has 2 senators for less than 600k people, but California has 2 senators for 39million people.

The founding fathers could not have predicted the current situation and I doubt they would have thought it fair. Plus, original design of the house and senate, it was modeled in the spirit of British commons and lords, but it no longer applies, they are basically two bodies now that are about on par with each other, where often a congressperson will become a senator, etc, where in England, a member of Commons would never become a "lord'. Therefore, a more house like representation in the Senate is warranted, to be fair (noting that 50 dem Senator's constituency is 40 million more than the constituency of 50 Senators) because one persons vote in CA is but a fraction in value compared to one person's vote in Wyoming, and that is not fair.

That **** doesn't fly, today. The 'factions' of today, are the diversity of the Democratic party, we are ONE BIG group, the majority. Parties did not exist during the framing of the constitution, so the writings of the federalist paper defending the EC no longer are serving 'we the people'.

 

You're misreading it, I would never want to can the constitution, only amend it to make America have more democracy, and add a right to privacy amendment. I'll grant you I could have articulated it better.

 

Scotus granted women the right to an abortion, it was voted 7-2 with five of them Republicans. It was upheld in numerous cases, and was the law of the land for 50 years, and now Scotus has taken it away.

Taht is the only salient fact, all the intellectual rationalizations do not matter to whose whom Scotus has taken that right away from.

 

So you want to get rid of the EC. That will break up the nation. Which Im not saying is necessarily a bad idea ...but it is what will happen.

Either we have a union of states bound by a contract, or we void the contract and unbind the states. The EC is part of that contract. States that leave the union will then only be bound by their state constitutions, which in many cases are even less democratic than that of our union. If you're really only seeking to make our country more democratic, I think breaking up the union is going to be counterproductive to that in the macro.

 

lol, no.

 

If women are a majority why do democrats declare them a protected minority?

That is not how democracy works

Furthermore since your definition of a woman is whatever someones claims to be or for that matter a man is the same thing then there is no majority and democracy is a lie.

Your confidence is nothing but hubris and it will be your undoing. No one will give a DAMN about this USSC decision come november. They will voe aghainst the democrat failures who gave us this monstrous inflation and bad economy.

Your parrty will be wiped out FACT

 

Have you ever thought about focusing your efforts on how terrible of a country Brazil is, versus trying to fundamentally change the U.S.? You wave that Brazilian flag loud and proud, yet that’s one of the worst places one could live. Tons of Brazilians flee from their, to here.

 

For example.................................................?

 

Roe v Wade .....which was clearly unconstitutional.

 

Well, laugh at this: the point raised by you doesn't negate the point raised by me.

 

I love how liberals are all for the Constitution until it's something they don't like and then the Constitution is a big bad ancient relic

 

Apparently your mind can't handle the points raised in the OP.

 

Sorry. Abortion by post code doesnt sit well with me.

 

That is not a fact.
That is an opinion.

 

Same with the Obergefell case.
Who is to say that the laws of one state should become the determining factor of the "Supremacy Clause" simply because a justice likes the wording?

And what some have said in the past isn't even close to what they are saying now...

 

Well if you want to change your mind on your original statement that's fine, however I find your original statement, full of hate for old white men documents, as a window to how you truly feel. But obviously amendments to the hated old white men constitution would be a more doable goal than whatever revolution would be required to totally replace it.

Curious about the "Right to Privacy" amendment though; what would that cover?

 

Heh, I refer you to the OP.

 

You did nothing but give your hyperbolic opinion and state that it was a "fact"

 

It would protect any act that is harmless to others that is done in private. Such as:

Contraception,
Gay sex,
Cunnilingus;fellatio (Some Sodomy laws prohibit it).
Gay Marriage

You know, the kind of **** up tight conservatives can't stand, though some do it and don't tell anyone but usually get caught.

 

Well, was the Constitution written by a diverse crew of people, you know --- minorities, blacks, poor people, women, etc?

No.

So, title to the OP is a fact.

Did repubs awaken a sleeping giant ( the democrats) with the repealing of Roe?

That's an opinion, but I believe it to be true. There are protestations all over the united states in all 50 states I believe.