There are multiple self-defeating fuckups in the opinion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44741167)

Next up: women charged with attempted murder for riding bikes while pregnant

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44734224)

But from an ethical perspective, the right to not be murdered trumps the right to not be inconvenienced. Men are inconvenienced by an unwanted pregnancy as well, in the form of 18 years of financial servitude. That doesn’t give men the right to order an abortion. So what we’re really talking about is a few months of discomfort. The idea that the “right” to avoid that discomfort gives one the “right” to kill a child is absurd. What’s more absurd is the proposition that such a right is found in the Constitution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44734496)

To be fair, this was always retarded, at least in places where abortion is legal. It makes no sense that after a man and a woman accidentally conceive an unwanted fetus, the woman can then opt out of 18 years of financial responsibility via an abortion but the man has no way to opt out. Yet that’s the way it has worked under Roe from 1973 to 2022, and will continue to work in post-Roe blue states and in Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.

To be clear, I don’t think men should ever have the right to “order an abortion,” just that child support should be strictly opt-in in countries/states with legal abortion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44735811)

Someone already tried this (unsuccessfully):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44739978)

If so, couldn't the father theoretically also avail himself of safe-haven laws in the rare scenario where it's the mother who is nowhere to be found instead of the father?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44740787)

This, however, is irrelevant to the point. Women can opt out of financial responsibility even after giving birth. Men cannot. That is the equal protection challenge.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44766449)

Not even the Bible acknowledges this right exists for fetuses. In fact, it *refutes* this by allowing a husband to force his wife to get an abortion if he *thinks* it's not his.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44736715)

anyway, why do you think a woman has a right to be a whore? do you think women have a fundamental right to be whores, a right (not privilege) that the highest government of the land is duty bound to protect even in competition with the survival of the whore's own child?

why are you kikes all fucked in the head?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44734494)

when was the last time you had sex with a woman without paying?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44734525)

if you weren't a 5'6 jewfrow, beady eyed, hooked nose, crooked kike, I assure you that you could become intimate with women, without becoming a:

(i) feminist faggot

(ii) porn producer

(iii) sex trafficker

The above (i) through (iii) is just the beginning to a very long list of reasons why every civilization is repulsed by both your physical form and moral influence

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44734619)

for men, it's the right to bear arms

for women, it's the right to bear/not to bear children

fair is fair

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44765999)

Established and Relied Upon Rights have been trampled upon.

The Establishment Clause has been violated, egregious given the legislative branch now wields power (in this case, to do nothing protecting women's rights) beyond checks and balances.

The legitimacy of the Court has been lost for the first time since Dred Scott.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrFy957l8ko

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44770930)

It imposed a standard that was well beyond anything that existed in the country and was on the radical edge of laws all across the world for decades.

but yes, you are a giant pussy and a huge fag

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44737783)

Author: .,.,..;.;..,;,..,.,;.,

republicans were going to dominate midterms and now they're gonna get absolutely crushed. it's not like the country is going to manage to keep the opinion today as law, even if you think it's rightly decided

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44734641)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44734979)

the people for whom abortion influences how they vote were already going to show up and vote democrat.

people care a lot more about inflation and the economy in general.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44735168)

But this ruling changes very little on the ground either way

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44735142)

Not rooted in text and contrary to text are different things.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44737222)

While that's very fascinating, I don't think it is a productive area of discussion. Thank.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44737768)

If only we could trace this problem back to one particularly bad ruling....

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44735323)

In reality pre-Marshall Court was already reviewing statutes, and doing much else besides; Marbury did not alter the nature of judicial review. The historiography of the fable you advert to = Marshall got promoted to bold hero and savior in order to justify the depredatory expansions of the New Deal. See https://brewminate.com/the-supreme-court-before-john-marshall/

* even prior to Marbury, state and federal courts routinely ruled on state legislation’s validity as it regarded judiciary matters (as one example, legislation impacting jury trials)

* the paper summarizes the early case history as focusing on “policing boundaries” between governmental entities with regard to judicial questions

* there was debate about the court’s power to invalidate legislation when there was a plausible argument for constitutionality [EOM]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44735548)

I doubt the conservative justices would take the same approach they did to the Second Amendment as the Emoluments Clause. Most would say the Emoluments Clause is dead law and incapable of application in modern times (I would agree). But if you wanted to stick it Trump, you could definitely breathe life into that clause by applying textual analysis and researching its legislative history. You can then concoct a neat little test and say that Trump was in violation.

The Supreme Court is a super-legislature that renders decisions based on a mix of political preferences and legal doctrines. It's true of the liberal and conservative justices.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44735944)

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1539988629585543169

Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44735275)

Your other posts ITT are smart (and honest) but don't go retard on us now pls

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44737845)

SC's recent overturn is constitutionally more correct. And this may begin the process of getting people to shut the fuck up about abortion. Blue states will have them, red states will restrict them, everyone gets what they want to some degree.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44736563)

-obeezy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44736707)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137939&forum_id=2#44737730)