Is the left still crying about Roe vs Wade ?
Or are they back to crying about Ukraine?
Never seen so many people get upset over not being able to kill babies
Never seen so many people get upset over not being able to kill babies
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
1-25 of 32
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@MasterLee
At least they are whining about loosing a right to do something that seriously impacts someones personal life.
It's not like:
- Outrage about green M&Ms not being "sexy" anymore
- Outrage about Disney giving their opinion on a new law
- Outrage about the organisation that owns Dr. Seuss books, because they took some titles out of their inventory
- Outrage about Gillette commercials being to "woke"
- Outrage about "CRT" in schools, without understanding the concept "CRT"
- Outrage about "gobalism" without understanding the word "globalism"
- Outrage about election theft, without there being any election theft
- Outrage about a guy reading a telepropter, without caring about actual policy
- Outrage about an investigation into a corrupt politician, because it's a right-wing politican
- Outrage about "Mr Potatohead" being genderneutral
- Outrage about Keurig coffee machines, because they stopped sponsoring Hannity
- Outrage about books in schools, because they tackle things like: racism, homosexuality, persecutions, ... or just sexuality or shown a drawn boob (MAUS)
- Outrage because people say "happy hollidays" instead of "merry x-mas" (aka, "the war on x-mas")
- Outrage about vaccines beause "ma freedom", even though the outrage is based on false information
- Outrage about wearing a mouthmask during a pandemic
- Outrage about a black guy in the white house
- Outrage about black people sitting next to white people in schools (or drinking from the same water fountain)
- ...
The list of r*tarded and bigotted toppics goes on and on and on ... in the US. 🤷♂️
When isn't the left whining
At least they are whining about loosing a right to do something that seriously impacts someones personal life.
It's not like:
- Outrage about green M&Ms not being "sexy" anymore
- Outrage about Disney giving their opinion on a new law
- Outrage about the organisation that owns Dr. Seuss books, because they took some titles out of their inventory
- Outrage about Gillette commercials being to "woke"
- Outrage about "CRT" in schools, without understanding the concept "CRT"
- Outrage about "gobalism" without understanding the word "globalism"
- Outrage about election theft, without there being any election theft
- Outrage about a guy reading a telepropter, without caring about actual policy
- Outrage about an investigation into a corrupt politician, because it's a right-wing politican
- Outrage about "Mr Potatohead" being genderneutral
- Outrage about Keurig coffee machines, because they stopped sponsoring Hannity
- Outrage about books in schools, because they tackle things like: racism, homosexuality, persecutions, ... or just sexuality or shown a drawn boob (MAUS)
- Outrage because people say "happy hollidays" instead of "merry x-mas" (aka, "the war on x-mas")
- Outrage about vaccines beause "ma freedom", even though the outrage is based on false information
- Outrage about wearing a mouthmask during a pandemic
- Outrage about a black guy in the white house
- Outrage about black people sitting next to white people in schools (or drinking from the same water fountain)
- ...
The list of r*tarded and bigotted toppics goes on and on and on ... in the US. 🤷♂️
MasterLee · 56-60, M
@Kwek00 14th? What was lost again?
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Feel free to point out what was lost.
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Feel free to point out what was lost.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@MasterLee The right to choose to have an abortion.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) holding that women in the United States had a fundamental right to choose whether to have abortions without excessive government restriction and striking down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional. The decision was issued together with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, which involved a similar challenge to Georgia's abortion laws.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@MasterLee That's not really how constitutions and courts work... But as I said before MasterLee, this is way to difficult for you. Why even engage when you don't know what you are talking about?
The function of the court is to "interpretate" the law. That means that if issues come up years after the law is written, it's the function of the court to interpretate how the law would be applicable in the modern day world. In 1973, the supreme court declared that the constitution DOES provide the fundamental right to choose whethere to have abortions without excessive government restriction. And they found this right in the 14th amendment.
Today, in 2022, after almost 50 year of precident, the court destroys that verdict. Meaning that a right that was granted for almost 50 years, was lost in 2022. Hence, people lost a right.
Pretending that this isn't the case because things weren't literally in the constitution... kinda fucks you over real hard when there is a court that wants to take away (for example) the "right to freedom of movement". Something all Americans have right now, but is not literally in the constitution. But why do Americans have that right? Well... the freedom of movement was "found" to be a constitutional right by the supreme court in a case called: Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823). Just like Roe vs Wade, was a protection "found" by the supreme court. Considering that "freedom of movement" is not explicitly in the constitution, it's only fair under the argument that people that love literal interpretations of law texts, should be stripped away from you and that no one should complain. Because you won't find it anywhere in the constitution.
The function of the court is to "interpretate" the law. That means that if issues come up years after the law is written, it's the function of the court to interpretate how the law would be applicable in the modern day world. In 1973, the supreme court declared that the constitution DOES provide the fundamental right to choose whethere to have abortions without excessive government restriction. And they found this right in the 14th amendment.
Today, in 2022, after almost 50 year of precident, the court destroys that verdict. Meaning that a right that was granted for almost 50 years, was lost in 2022. Hence, people lost a right.
Pretending that this isn't the case because things weren't literally in the constitution... kinda fucks you over real hard when there is a court that wants to take away (for example) the "right to freedom of movement". Something all Americans have right now, but is not literally in the constitution. But why do Americans have that right? Well... the freedom of movement was "found" to be a constitutional right by the supreme court in a case called: Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823). Just like Roe vs Wade, was a protection "found" by the supreme court. Considering that "freedom of movement" is not explicitly in the constitution, it's only fair under the argument that people that love literal interpretations of law texts, should be stripped away from you and that no one should complain. Because you won't find it anywhere in the constitution.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@MasterLee
See... first you complain about "emotionalism", and then you turn "fetus" into "baby"... How stupid are you?
The function of the courts in a liberal democracy (what you are in living) is to interpretate the laws. That's what the judicial branch does.
Legeslative branch - makes laws
Executive branch - execute the laws
Judicial branch - interpretates the laws
... that's the most simplistic form of organisation in governement that is split up into 3 branches.
If people like yourself are consistent, they would loose their freedom of movement.
I realize you skipped civics. Why do you bother with these appeals to emotionalism?
There is no constitutional support to kill babies.
There is no constitutional support to kill babies.
See... first you complain about "emotionalism", and then you turn "fetus" into "baby"... How stupid are you?
The function of the courts in a liberal democracy (what you are in living) is to interpretate the laws. That's what the judicial branch does.
Legeslative branch - makes laws
Executive branch - execute the laws
Judicial branch - interpretates the laws
... that's the most simplistic form of organisation in governement that is split up into 3 branches.
If people like yourself are consistent, they would loose their freedom of movement.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@MasterLee When you are gone, read up on what "liberal democracy" means. It's okay, you can feel really stupid after reading up on it and maybe review this triggered responds of going: "we are a republic".
I'm saying people like yourself are highly inconsitent. Mainly because they are stupid or bigots.
Have a great day dumbass!
I'm saying people like yourself are highly inconsitent. Mainly because they are stupid or bigots.
Have a great day dumbass!
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@MasterLee Read it and weep simpleton:
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
SOURCE: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) holding that women in the United States had a fundamental right to choose whether to have abortions without excessive government restriction and striking down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional. The decision was issued together with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, which involved a similar challenge to Georgia's abortion laws.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
SOURCE: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx
1-25 of 32