Trump's SCOTUS

[de officiis]

Dude, your opinion literally makes NO DIFFERENCE. SCOTUS doesn't care what you think. You can't vote to change it. It's been up for debate several times & been reaffirmed.

To implement its holding, Casey rejected both Roe's rigid trimester framework and the interpretation of Roe that considered all previability regulations of abortion unwarranted. On this point Casey overruled the holdings in two cases because they undervalued the State's interest in potential life.  We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy." It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if a regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." On the other hand, "[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose."

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124  (U.S. 2007) (citations omitted).

This represents the basis legal framework for deciding abortion cases at present.

[Martin Hash]

State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy."

"right to choose."

These, of course, are definitions of liberty but The Court doesn't use hierarchy of liberty in their decision-making like I do. My explanation provides much clearer lines of debate that do not involve mysticism:
Liberty comes before life.
When it's a choice between two liberties, the most imposition loses: babies in womb, high imposition.

[StCapps]

State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy."

"right to choose."

These, of course, are definitions of liberty but The Court doesn't use hierarchy of liberty in their decision-making like I do. My explanation provides much clearer lines of debate that do not involve mysticism:
Liberty comes before life.
When it's a choice between two liberties, the most imposition loses: babies in womb, high imposition.

Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Notice how Life is listed first, and Liberty listed second, there is a reason for that.

[Martin Hash]

Dude, "Give me liberty or give me death." The American mythos.

If Life got top billing then State interventionism to save life over liberty would justify full-on socialism. Can't drive, can't own guns, can't do dangerous sports, etc.

p.s. You're excused, being Canadian and all.

[Speaker to Animals]

Abortion, just like its intellectual predecessor chattel slavery, represents a cyanide pill that poisons the very heart of liberty and the basis upon which our republic was framed. Once you accept that one group of humans is less than and unworthy of rights than another group of humans, all sorts of wicked shit ensues. We have been here before, with slave holders crying about their "liberty" and whatnot, using basically the same arguments you see in this thread from those who defend abortion.

You can't call this a "liberty nation" while you pick and choose who gets to be considered human. That was never your call to make, and the fact that it's not your call to make is the corner stone of our governmental framework: government only recognizes preexisting human rights.

[Martin Hash]

Dude, I didn't pick anything, The Constitution did via SCOTUS.

I keep telling you, your only option is a Constitutional prohibition against abortion specifically putting the liberty of a fetus ahead of the liberty of the mother. Why do you keep fighting me on this? It's your path to victory.

[StCapps]

Dude, "Give me liberty or give me death." The American mythos.

If Life got top billing then State interventionism to save life over liberty would justify full-on socialism. Can't drive, can't own guns, can't do dangerous sports, etc.

p.s. You're excused, being Canadian and all.

Life getting top billing does not justify full-on socialism and it doesn't mean that life always trumps liberty in every situation either. It just means that you can't exercise your liberty, if you aren't alive to enjoy it. Others might be able to enjoy their liberty in part because of the sacrifice of those who died for it, but Americans can't exercise their individual sovereignty that is talked about in the declaration of independence if they are all dead.

Without Life There Can Be No Liberty
Life is a pre-condition for the existence of Liberty, putting the cart before the horse makes no sense.

[Martin Hash]

Why do you keep trying to argue against a fact? Liberty in numero uno in American law. You may not agree with it, you may want it to change, you may think some mystical power trumps The Law, but a fact is a fact. You can only change it by changing the underlying authority, which means a Constitutional Convention.

How can this be a debate?

[StCapps]

Why do you keep trying to argue against a fact? Liberty in numero uno in American law. You may not agree with it, you may want it to change, you may think some mystical power trumps The Law, but a fact is a fact. You can only change it by changing the underlying authority, which means a Constitutional Convention.

How can this be a debate?

Liberty coming first isn't a fact, it's a myth that some Americans like to tell themselves. The saying isn't "Liberty, Life and The Pursuit of Happiness", it's "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness". You've got it backwards Yankee, not me, I know y'all better than you know yourselves apparently.

[Martin Hash]

Dude, I'll tell you what: come down here & prevent a woman from having an abortion, or take people's guns, or stop them from paragliding, and see what happens? Perhaps you're right? Perhaps you won't end up in jail? That'll convince me that you're correct that life comes before liberty. It's up to you to prove an outlandish claim...