Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade?

Quote: kenarman

So you believe in get in their face anyplace politics and make a persons life a living hell. Sounds like the protest at the Capital was something you would support.

I wonder if he would have supported making the justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage a living hell?

Chill out, it's merely a change in the ever-shifting political winds.

Give it another fifty years, things will change again.

Besides, there's not a damned thing that can be done about it, short of "eliminating" the conservative jurists and having uncle Joe appoint a new crop of left-leaning drones.

Like it or not, this is EXACTLY what the founders envisioned, i.e. "checks and balances."

I for one don't like it when one party controls the presidency, both houses of congress and the USSC: too much potential for political and social mischief.

Quote: AZDuffman

I wonder if he would have supported making the justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage a living hell?

It wouldn’t bother me.

I suspect anyone protesting the gay marriage decision would look like one of the hopeless losers who stormed the Capitol. It would just reaffirm to the Justice that they made the correct decision.

Quote: kenarman

So you believe in get in their face anyplace politics and make a persons life a living hell. Sounds like the protest at the Capital was something you would support.

As long as no laws are broken, the Constitutional right to protest is sacred to me

The Constitution doesn't guarantee public officials' special insulation from the public. They make that s*** up on their own.

Quote: rxwine

The Constitution doesn't guarantee public officials' special insulation from the public. They make that s*** up on their own.

Actually the judiciary does have special rules to protect them.

Quote: kenarman

Actually the judiciary does have special rules to protect them.

Not in the Constitution, which is what I said.

Quote: rxwine

Not in the Constitution, which is what I said.

I don't know your constitution good enough to disagree.

This is just a FYI since it is the UN guidance and has no legal status in the US. It does however show what should be happening to keep the judiciary independent.

"2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason."

Quote: kenarman

I don't know your constitution good enough to disagree.

This is just a FYI since it is the UN guidance and has no legal status in the US. It does however show what should be happening to keep the judiciary independent.

"2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason."

…..except when they rule in a manner that gets Dems upset…. then it becomes ok to apply pressure and threats…. It is the way of the Democrats whenever they lose….

Scholars on both sides said this ruling went farther than required. So, it's obvious it was more than a neutral case decided entirely on the merit. So, I especially don't care if they have to put up with loud protestors