Yeah because they always write up how the decision came about. The logic and reasoning based on law and precedence. I mean if they did not then it would just be invalid and void.
She wrote that she believed the 7-2 Roe v Wade ruling that established those federal abortion rights had “usurped the will of the American people”
Fuck you Amy. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. But stay the fuck out of other people’s personal decisions.
Abortion should be legal, but tying it to an amendment to make it seem like it’s protected by the constitution was always a lie that shouldn’t have gotten through.
Even more strangely, she seems to think that stomping on rights is okay, even if most of the country was against that? The will of the people doesn’t matter now, but it did back then?
I feel like making the President above the law was usurping the will of the people but you fucking did it anyway
‘People’ as established by Citizens United.
Mitt? Is that you?
“We’ve got binders full of women!”
If so, tell him to go iron his shirt
It’s a bit late in the game for that isn’t it?
I mean - she’s right, but the SC has already cast aside law, precedent and the Constitution at this point, and is ruling almost entirely based on opinion. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say, “preference.”
In the book, set for publication on 9 September, Barrett asserted her belief that the June 2022 ruling that struck down abortion rights nationally “respected the choice” of Americans.
Ah… so she’s not just contradicting the plain reality of the current SC, but her own statements.
Or more precisely, just spewing whatever line of bullshit might serve her current purposes.
Which is undoubtedly the reason she was nominated in the first place, and the exact thing she was expected to contribute.
Helluva timeline we’re living in here…
And she’s not even in the top 4 worst justices
This; painfully, this.
>“I want Americans to understand the law – and that it’s not just an opinion poll about whether the supreme court thinks something is good or … bad,” Barrett said. “What the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided.”
Weird. I thought the court’s job was to determine the constitutionality of laws as accurately as possible.
Fuck these spineless twats. Their rulings are worthy of adorning toilet paper.
Calling them spineless suggests that they aren’t part of the attack on democracy.
Complicit is the word theyre searching for. Accomplices would also suffice. Co-conspirator might be giving them a bit more agency than they deserve, though.
Oh, the fucking irony.
Ask that bitch her opinion on women having fewer rights than men in this country, then tell her to sit down and shut up like good breeding stock
How do women have fewer rights than men in the US?
It’s my understanding that men have to sign up for the draft, but women don’t.
Some irrelevant paperwork does not mean men have fewer rights than women.
If it’s just “irrelevant paperwork,” then why do we have men do it and not women?
Historical inertia. There’s really no other point to it.
https://www.sss.gov/register/benefits-and-penalties/
A man who fails to register may be ineligible for opportunities important to his future. He must register to be eligible for state-funded student financial aid and employment in many states, most federal employment, job training under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and U.S. citizenship for immigrant men.
If required to register, failure to register is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the registration requirement is subject to the same penalties.
Sure seems unfair to punish one sex for not filling out “irrelevant paperwork” and not the other. Almost like, in this instance, one sex has fewer rights than the other.
Someone clarified that pregnant women have fewer rights than men, which also means they have fewer rights than women who are not pregnant. Without getting into that discussion, I’d like to know how you think women who aren’t pregnant have fewer rights than men in the US.
Whooptie shit. You’re blowing that all out of proportion. Just because there’s a whole bunch of penalties attached for historical reasons does not change the fact that it’s irrelevant paperwork.
A vast majority of men keep voting to uphold this. https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/requiring-men-but-not-women-to-register-for-the-draft-is-sex-discrimination
Until they get pregnant and then women are drafted into the breeding stock army- answer to the state if you don’t take neonatal vitamins, miss doctors appointments, smoke, drink, do anything the state deems risky to it’s prodigy.
So you’re actually referring to pregnant women? You could at least say that so you come across as genuine instead of trying to pull one over on me.
I’m not the one you originally responded to but pregnancy is something that affects many more women than war affects men, at least in the US.
The problem is that we’re no longer discussing his original point. The goalposts have been moved.
If we’re talking specifically about pregnant women, then he should’ve said that so people understand that’s what he was referring to.
Trying to paint it as “all women” because sometimes some women are pregnant is disingenuous. It tells me that he’s avoiding telling the truth because it hurts his argument.
Gotta salvage her cred as a hateful conservative hypocrite.
But it is an opinion poll, just one with a small sample size. Having a law degree may be a factor but it’s still opinion-based.
