I was sorta joking in that post... but I do use simple meditation to relieve stress. Luckily, I live in a quiet natural environment so I'm able to sit outside and get my shit together.
Do you not see a dichotomy between the Court's decision on abortion and the same Court's decision on the carrying of guns; is it acceptable to you in light of what you write here? One day they say the State of New York cannot regulate the use of firearms and the very next day they say the State of Mississippi can regulate abortions; when are "state's rights" to apply and when are they null and void?
When did the Supreme Court "say the State of New York cannot regulate the use of firearms"? I missed that somehow.
You’re missing my point. The expectation that life should be easy or convenient is simply delusional is the point. That’s an expectation that has no basis in reality. It’s not even an issue of comparison to 200 years ago; peoples lives are hard across the globe today. You have to justify why if someone want something — to move, to go to college, to have an abortion, there should be laws solely to make those things easy and convenient. and the argument that it doesn’t affect you so why do you care is terrible argument and can be applied to almost any behavior or actions that laws apply to. But let’s apply it to your previous argument. If a woman has to move to get an abortion and it doesn’t affect your life, why do you care. Or let’s apply it to the fact that abortion is a states right. If a woman in California can have an abortion why does she care whether the woman in Texas can’t? It doesn’t affect her at all. I agree with need to evolve. Humans throughout history have killed babies as a matter of convenience. Do you believe it is evolution to simply have devised a way to do it in the womb rather than having to wait until they are out of the womb like savages? Does the method really reflect an evolution of humanity or society? Or is it the same outdated approach to convenience and babies?
The difference is that the constitution explicitly states that people have a right to bear arms so the Supreme Court must protect it. That’s their job. but there is no such protection for abortion which means it’s a state issue until the federal government adds a constitutional amendment that would cover abortion. the criticism, therefore, belongs with the federal government for not having a constitutional amendment to do so, not on the ruling overturning Roe vs Wade.
From reading some of your Posts on here it looks like you better stay longer in that quiet natural place Acad
There does not need to be a constitutional amendment. A law would suffice. The Supreme Court would have to find specific fault with the law, which is fairly hard to do since as you say abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. It is generally acknowledged that states may craft laws that are less restrictive than the national standard but there is much more scrutiny when they try to pass laws that are more restrictive. The SC could try to walk the fine line on some issues but there is a very real possibility that the institution would create a Kangaroo Court atmosphere in so doing and would loosen the boundaries around it's own purview in the process. Extra justices and removal of funding for the processes at the top level are among many remedies that a super majority in the legislature and executive could impose and if KC became the norm those super majorities would show up sooner or later in the aftermath. Nobody likes a hanging judge.
Never thought I'd see you get upset about an inaccurate meme. But you know what they say about broken clocks.
You saved me a bunch of typing. That is it in a nutshell and I'm surprised people can't see the distinction.
Do I seem upset? I'm not But I am glad that you agree that the cartoon is beyond misleading in both of its assertions.
In 2009, Dems had the House, a supermajority in the Senate for a few months, and the WH. Abortion right's could've been codified then. Like the ACA, it would've been very difficult for Repubs to repeal such a law.
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg also could’ve stepped down knowing how sickly she was or trending to be and let Obama replace her. Both political parties have had a lot of opportunities to do things over the past 15 years and they’ve sat on their hands and collected paychecks.
