DRAFT: Extremists at the Supreme Court

<p>It's clear from the citizens united ruling that the extremists on the bench don't mind at all overturning decades of established precedent in service of partisan gain.</p> <p>&#160;</p> <p>Abortion should have become even more legal under the 13th amendment. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, remember? If you make a clump of cells a 'person' then they're unlawfully using the womans personal property, aka her womb, in directly violation of her civil liberties.</p> <p>&#160;</p> <p>One person cannot own or use another persons body involuntarily. That's been settled constitutional law for over 150 years.</p>


Jeffry Gilbert Added Jul 11, 2018 - 10:33pm
Extremist can be argued from any conflicting position. 
To the left Trump is extreme and to the right Killary is extreme. 
Trump has managed to get both the DEM and the GOP united in their extreme hatred of him. 
EXPAT Added Jul 11, 2018 - 10:45pm
Excellent comment Jeffry Gilbert. What was lost, is the dialectic of reason.
But I partially agree with the abortion stance. In some cases the best alternative is to end the development into a viable life. But after 6 months, the fetus is viable. A viable life must be considered as more than a group of cells. But if you are going to demand a viable fetus come to term, you must also make provision to care for it until it is a person. In American society, that is 18 years.
Leroy Added Jul 11, 2018 - 10:51pm
Careful what you are saying there, Expat.  The unrestricted abortionists might conclude that the child can be aborted anytime before they turn 18.  They certainly don't want the mother forced into involuntary servitude.
EXPAT Added Jul 11, 2018 - 11:20pm
Leroy. May I suggest you look to your own, instead of predicting what others might do! The only unrestricted abortionist I know of, is doing life in prison for destroying viable life, as I posted.
We also have a special court system for those under 18. In some states it is called Family court, in others, the Juvenile Court system.
If you are pro life, and help young girls in trouble, I admire you. If you just want to pass laws forcing a woman to raise a child she is incapable of caring for, I say you are guilty of child abuse.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 12, 2018 - 8:11am
Reddicuskotor, what kind of ridiculousness have your given us as your introduction to WB?
<<Abortion should have become even more legal under the 13th amendment. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, remember?>> If I remember other then rape which represents a very small portion of abortions consent was given. And having a baby from intercourse is not a mystery. So this is not an involuntary act.
<<If you make a clump of cells a 'person' then they're unlawfully using the woman personal property, aka her womb, in directly violation of her civil liberties.>> a seed is recognized as the tree or plant that will result, a X seed. An egg is X creature it will create. We have long determined this And I mean stone age long. We, biologist, have add that the identity of the resulting plant or creature including a human is determined when the sperm and egg join. So even the first cell is a HUMAN.
So the issue is not the biology fact of when a unique human is defined but when government and religions recognize the existence of a human. Before modern medicine the moving of a baby in the womb was one measure.
I and the majority of the citizens do not accept the practice put in clear light by the Penn. abortion doctor conviction. The regulation department were compliment. So the actual law was that a HUMAN EXIST ONLY WHEN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS IN HAND.
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 11:43am
I think you misunderstand me, Expat.  Seems you automatically assumed that I was criticising you.  I was ridiculing the author's position.  Not many people recognize sarcasm and for that I apologize if it misled you.
EXPAT Added Jul 12, 2018 - 11:59am
I am not thin skinned! I have the hide of a Crocodile. I had a point to make and used your comment to make it.
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:11pm
We may have found just the woman for Ryan.
EXPAT Added Jul 12, 2018 - 12:40pm
I don't think so. She likes sex, and thinks women have rights!
Ken Added Jul 12, 2018 - 2:13pm
The whole point of the supreme court is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.  If all it did was look at precedent there would be no point for it. 
Korimatzu was precedent since 1942, should it still be there?
How about Dred Scott?  That a precedent we should follow?
How about Plessy v. Ferguson?
That is just inane.  The supreme court is far from perfect, especially when it is stacked with activist ideologues by one president or another.
Since when did interpreting the constitution as written and intended become an "extreme" view and being an activist judge become the "moderate" view?
That is completely backward, left-wing propaganda.  You can't make a society that believe in individual liberty your socialist utopia until you completely disregard the constitution which guarantees that individual liberty and limits the government.
Leroy Added Jul 12, 2018 - 3:07pm
"I don't think so. She likes sex, and thinks women have rights!"
They so opposites attract.  What can be more opposite than a sexualized hyper-feminist and a hyper-conservative religious follower?  It would be like Mary Matalin and James Carville without the religious aspect.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 12, 2018 - 3:13pm
The left is frustrated because they now lose the capability of circumventing the Legislative Branch as the Constitution suggests and demands. 
Let them go without their sordid 'rights' and more for a generation or two. BTW, the old ACLU hag should be stuffed so her vote will hang on for decades and service the needs of perverts, chaos and liberalism. 
opher goodwin Added Jul 12, 2018 - 6:46pm
I would suggest that those abortion laws should raise the limit to 72 years.
Pardero Added Jul 12, 2018 - 8:12pm
What Leroy said!
It is VOLUNTARY servitude, unless the woman was raped. 
Actions have consequences. Consider that BEFORE your next tryst. If you are a victim of uncontrollable urges, a psychological waiver may be available, I have never looked into it, actually.